Edlin, R. (2004) Anti-social welfare functions: a reply to Hansen et al [erratum appears in J Health Econ. 2005 Sep;24(5):1054]. Journal of Health Economics, 23 (5). pp. 899-905. ISSN 0167-6296Full text available as:
Available under licence : See the attached licence file.
We could reasonably expect society to give at least the same weight to the marginal utility of the poor as to the rich, and to the marginal utility of the ill as compared to the healthy. Whilst Hansen et al. [Journal of Health Economics (2004)], may be said to link CEA and CBA within a welfarist framework, the assumptions they require are inconsistent with these types of ethical preferences. Thus, the degree to which they employ a reasonable social welfare function is doubtful. This paper argues that any link between CEA and CBA will occur not within a welfarist framework but instead within a non-welfarist one in which it is unlikely that CBA results could be easily transformed into cost-effectiveness ratios.
|Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information:||Comment on: J Health Econ. 2004 Sep;23(5):887-98; © 2004 Elsevier B.V. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.|
|Keywords:||*Attitude to Health *Cost-Benefit Analysis Financing, Personal Humans Life Expectancy Models, Econometric Public Sector/ec [Economics] Quality-Adjusted Life Years Risk *Social Welfare/ec [Economics] Value of Life/ec [Economics]|
|Institution:||The University of Leeds|
|Academic Units:||The University of Leeds > Faculty of Medicine and Health (Leeds) > School of Medicine (Leeds) > Leeds Institute of Health Sciences (Leeds) > Academic Unit of Health Economics (Leeds)|
|Depositing User:||Mrs JM Wright|
|Date Deposited:||16 Jan 2008 18:22|
|Last Modified:||08 Feb 2013 17:07|